ThinkingAfield.org

NSSF^®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is disappointed by the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Barnett v. Raoul. NSSF respectfully disagrees with the Court’s decision to reverse and remand a lower court’s ruling — made after conducting a several-day bench trial — that Illinois’ law is unconstitutional and that Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. As disappointing as this decision is, NSSF is confident that the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and Bruen are clear and those precedents plainly vindicate the challenges to similar laws that will be argued before the Supreme Court in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins in the next session.

NSSF is a plaintiff in this case and plans on filing a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

NSSF believes the Seventh Circuit erred in its decision when it ruled that MSRs are “dangerous and unusual.” There are more than 32 million MSRs in circulation today, making these semiautomatic, centerfire rifles commonly owned and commonly used by nearly every standard. Likewise, there are hundreds of millions of standard-capacity magazines owned by law-abiding Americans in the United States. Further, NSSF believes the court misapplied the Bruen test by relying on a handful of laws restricting the carrying of Bowie knives that are in no way analogous to Illinois’ law and post-date not only the Nation’s founding, but also the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

NSSF agrees with Chief Judge Michael Brennan’s dissent, in the strongest terms, in which he wrote, “Now, with perhaps the most comprehensive trial record in any Second Amendment case to date, this court repeats its error. Our Nation’s enduring traditions forbid governments from prohibiting firearms commonly owned for self-defense. Because the people have overwhelmingly chosen the AR-15 rifle and its magazine as their weapon of choice, they are protected by the Second Amendment.”

About NSSF: NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) President Brandon Combs issued the following statement responding to the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in FPC’s Harrel v. Raoul lawsuit (consolidated with Barnett v. Raoul and others) challenging the Illinois Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines. The district court declared the bans unconstitutional following extensive briefing, presentation of evidence, and a trial, but the Seventh Circuit reversed that ruling today:

“Today’s decision is exactly what we’ve come to expect from courts desperately contorting themselves to keep failed gun-control theories alive. While the opinion is unquestionably atrocious in both its legal reasoning and moral foundation, the good news is that today’s opinion is not the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence but the death rattle of the failed gun-control era—the last gasp of a dying authoritarian legal movement that has spent years engaging in judicial jiggery-pokery, inventing exceptions, rewriting history, misrepresenting reality, and treating the Second Amendment like a second-class right.

Just days ago, the Supreme Court granted review in FPC’s Viramontes v. Cook County case, which squarely presents the issue these lower courts keep working so hard to avoid. That grant of certiorari was not an accident. It is a recognition that the confusion and open defiance in the lower courts—exemplified yet again by today’s Seventh Circuit decision—cannot and must not continue.

The Constitution does not permit governments to outlaw these firearms and magazines, full stop. Nor does it allow judges to substitute their personal policy preferences for the scope of the right the Constitution enshrined, or to ignore the test the Supreme Court has repeatedly required. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to restore order to a body of law that some lower courts have treated as optional. When it does, opinions like this will serve as little more than historical reminders of how far some courts were willing to go to deny Americans the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.

For years, anti-rights governments have benefited from some judges willing to do whatever it took to preserve their unconstitutional and immoral bans. They’ve won some battles along the way. But we are going to win the war.

FPC is going to achieve our Current Mission which is to restore the essential right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. We will continue to Fight Forward until every unconstitutional arms ban falls and the Second Amendment is treated like every other constitutional guarantee—not as a suggestion, but as the supreme law of the land.” Read more